B&W conversion revisted

[wdenies]

Today I started the evaluation of the ConvertToBW Pro 3.0 Photoshop CS plug-in from THEIMAGEFACTORY.
This plug-in is available for MAC and Windows XP.
After using it for one hour I must say:

I AM IMPRESSED!

This plug-in acts as the combination of a camera loaded with B&W film and an enlarger with Ilford Multigrade paper underneath it.
The original colour image is the scene you will shoot.

Workflow:
Load colour picture in Photoshop.
Start the plug-in
Select the B&W film you prefer (Tmax, TriX,......)
Apply a filter (green,yellow,red,...) if required
"print" on the multigrade gradation you like

During the conversion the original is not altered. The plug-in has its own preview window.

I think this module will save me a lot of time!

A 30 day full featured trial version is available for download.
A lic. key costs 100 $

Wim

 

[ray_g]

Sounds like a good program, Wim. Any sample photos?

 

[wdenies]

The picture "Bench" in my gallery is the first attempt.
Converted from a Ekta100 colour slide

 

[Roger Hicks]

Workflow:

Shoot HP5 Plus

Process in DD-X

Print on Ilford MG IV in Fotospeed Warmtone developer

Try to replicate electronically from a colour neg...

Impressed by the last? Not very!

Cheers,

Roger

 

[wdenies]

Roger,
My digital RF will not survive this treatment.
This thread is not discussing how to shoot B&W pictures, but how to convert in an easy way from colour to B&W.
As you may know the build-in B&W feature of most of the digital camera's give very poor results.

 

[T_om]

Roger,
My digital RF will not survive this treatment.
This thread is not discussing how to shoot B&W pictures, but how to convert in an easy way from colour to B&W.
As you may know the build-in B&W feature of most of the digital camera's give very poor results.

Some film snobs feel they have to get their two cents into every thread, applicable or not.

PhotoShop has some GREAT features allowing conversions that even film snobs cannot tell from film capture. I know, I have already done the testing... film snobs are everywhere, by the way. 😉

The actions you reference are quite good, but I would urge you to try the "Calculations" method of conversion when you get a chance. It is one of the most powerful B&W conversion methods available. I learned it some time ago, but I am sure a web search will turn up a tutorial somewhere. It will amaze you the level of control available.

I like the bench shot... as an example of the technique. I might have done it a bit differently, but that is what makes photos individual statements. If everyone did the shot the same way I did, or you did, think of how boring pictures would become. 😀

Tom

 

[wdenies]

T_om,
Thanks for the support.
I know the "calculations"method (and many others). It gives marvelous results, but in time it can not beat the quick and dirty method of ConvertToBW

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry wdenies -- no intention to be a put-down, nor 'film snob' appeal (sorry T_om). Just a statement of personal belief/experience.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[richard_l]

In "Bench" I see mostly blocked shadows and blown highlights, typical of a slide photo of an extremely contrasty scene. I'm not criticizing either your photography skills or your conversion, just questioning your choice of an image to convert. Could it be a problem with my monitor? It's a new one which I just bought yesterday.

 

[wdenies]

I agree this not the ideal picture to test B&W conversion. Because I love High contrast pictures the contrast was put to the extreme.
Today I will prepair some other tests. Publishing coming soon

 

[thpook]

Here you go: an action that anyone can use, that is free (I made it) and used most of the methods available to convert color into black and white.

B&W Conversion

Also, there is another plugin that does the same thing, but for less. Power Retouche charges $75 for their B&W Studio Pro, It has a wide range of films and takes into account spectral sensitivities and so on. A fantastic plugin.

Power retouche black and white plugin

 

[GeneW]

Here's a good article on B&W conversions that takes you through a workflow rather than clicking on a pre-canned action:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html

Gene

 

[Bertram2]

After using it for one hour I must say:

I AM IMPRESSED!

Wim

Risking an insult too like "film snob" i dare to say that the example is for me no reason to feel impressed.

A general remark related to the electronic conversion of B&W:
Shooting C41B&W for many years and coverting colour neg quite often to B&W I know this is a completely different look from Silver B&W.

As far as digital camera output and it's conversation is concerend I must say that I haven't seen anything acceptable up 'til today. It IS a midtone medium, blown out highlights and muddy or completely closed shadows can let one assume that the algorithms simply give up from a certain point on. Even the famous software of Fred Miranda works not better .

Strange but true : Some photogs, who are really expereinced with decades of knowledgeable silver film use now seem to accept these deficits anyway and I have no explanation for that. In former times they would have trown a film like this away after the first roll !

In my eyes B&W is still te weakest point of digital cameras and that is the main reason for me to still stay away from an invest in this technology.

Let me add a last remark about "film- snobs": I do not think we have any here in the forum. We just have a lot of peope here who are still not contented with the results of digital cameras and this is a issue we should be able to discuss without getting offensive.

Best regards

Bertram

 

[formal]

Digital B&W

Digital B&W

As far as digital camera output and it's conversation is concerend I must say that I haven't seen anything acceptable up 'til today. It IS a midtone medium, blown out highlights and muddy or completely closed shadows can let one assume that the algorithms simply give up from a certain point on. Even the famous software of Fred Miranda works not better .
...
In my eyes B&W is still te weakest point of digital cameras and that is the main reason for me to still stay away from an invest in this technology.
Bertram

I can't agree and I think one needs to be careful about judging images electronically. Digitally captured images and scanned film captured images are very similar when viewed electronically. I have a club web page (see here ) with some B&W images and most members of our club are uncertain which were captured digitally and which were captured on film.

However, I would agree that darkroom prints have a different (but not necessarily better) quality than inkjet prints.

David

 

[thpook]

Here's a good article on B&W conversions that takes you through a workflow rather than clicking on a pre-canned action:

http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/n_Digital_BW/a_Digital_Black_and_White.html

Gene

I like how the last link in the article is a "canned" action. The thing is, when you have the action you can look at all the steps to see the workflow. Everything the action does, spelled out in B&W.

 

[Bertram2]

I can't agree and I think one needs to be careful about judging images electronically.

David

It is correct of course that watching gallery photos on a monitor has often not much to do with the prints of these photos, from various technical reasons .

But nevertheless I have found that the prints confirm in gneral what the monitor shows too, missing detail. Walking along mainstreet and watching the portraits, nudes and weddings in the windows of the photo shops I get this confirmed again and again. Nobody seems to notice it and so all are happy with
this stuff, that's o.k. But it does not make the pics better.


Best,
Bertram

 

[wdenies]

In my gallery there is now an album with the results of different B&W conversion methods:
ConvertToBW Pro 3.0 triX and FP4, printed on multigrade 3.5
Photoshop hue/saturation method
Photoshop calculations method
Power retouche plug-in

As a bonus : a less extreme conversion of the bench picture

Conclusion: (don't shoot the pianist)

1. Shoot on B&W film.
2. If conversion required:
If time is of no concern: hue/sturation method, otherwise ConvertToBW Pro

The power retouche plug-in gives less sharper images and tends to posterization

ConvertToBW is the favorite of our friend Michael Reichmann of the LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE!

Over and out

P.S. pictures will be removed within a week

 

[tetrisattack]

I always grit my teeth at plugins that automate the conversion process, because in the real darkroom, I'm dodging and burning, sometimes at different steps in a split-grade process. In the example above I like the result of the calculations method best, but I still went through and did it manually to meet my eye.

I like deep, inky shadows and accented, exaggerated lighting, so here's my contribution.

I'm also attaching the PSD so you can see what I'm up to. 🙂

Thanks for sharing these results...

 

[varjag]

I have seen many instances of good BW converted from color digital shots or color slide/print film scans. I also invested a good deal of time into learning the conversion methods, up to the point of writing "classic B&W" filters and film grain simulation plugins for the GIMP.

In many cases good conversion is possible, but you can't just shove any picture and have an acceptable BW out of it. The problems of different latitude (or dynamic range if you will) and characteristic curves of source material/sensor still remain. Sometimes you can match, say, Tri-X look, but you can't get that look from any random capture. To me, consistently decent BW is what converted me to film from digital.

Also, the thing with "matching film" from digital now actually puzzles me. The digital is a medium of its own, why then so much effort is being spent to look retro? To me it feels not entirely unlike the photography of Victorian era, when the artists were taking for granted that photographic portraits should mimic the qualities of paintings. Only in the beginning of last century photography have finally accepted its distinctiveness, I wonder how long it'll take for digital photography to get rid of this "me too" attitude. Maybe all we need is a sensor with identifiable "character"?

Sorry for the rant, hope it won't make me enlisted into the film snobs crowd 🙂

 

[x-ray]

I've been usint the Imaging Factories B&W pro converter since the beta version and can only say it's a very fine tool. I'm neither a digital or film snob but honestly feel it's the best converter that i've seen to date. If given a clean properly exposed digital file or very good scan from a properly exposed slide it will yield excellent conversions. Despite many opinions I don't think digital and film look alike. Even with the adition of grain in the digital file it just has a look that's differnet. Film has a different personality and look from digital. I base this on having shot a hundred thousand or so rolls and sheets of B&W and having shot a few hundred thousand frames with the finest digital equipment. It's all a matter of taste and personal need as to whether one is better than the other. I make my living with my 1dsII system and have my fun with my Leicas and film equipment.

If anyone is interested I have a like new Imacon 343 with all goodies and two custom holders for sale. Contact me through my website @ www.x-rayarts.com

I love the machine but needed a scanner to scan 11x14 film.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045